But it doesn't occur through mutations at all. It occurs through some kind of selection, often random selection, which brings about new gene frequencies, plus reproductive isolation (ideally anyway). Mutations are absolutely and completely irrelevant, and I seriously doubt they are involved in the process except very very rarely.

The differences in DNA sequence are built into the genome of the Kind. They are capable of producing a great deal of variation within the Kind. The processes that bring about the changes in phenotype entail loss of genetic diversity, however, so that you get new variations or subspecies (or breeds) by losing the alleles for other variations, and ultimately, down a particular line of evolution (or breeding) the new species or breed has only those alleles for that species or breed and has lost the alleles for other species or breeds. That means that at the extreme of evolution there is no more genetic diversity for further evolution. Breeders wouldn't add new genetic material at this point, and there's no reason it would occur in the wild either. The cheetah is still stuck with its fixed loci, no new mutations have come along to increase its genetic diversity.

The differences in DNA sequence are built into the genome of the Kind. They are capable of producing a great deal of variation within the Kind.

In order to evolve a new kind you would need to change the DNA sequence, correct?

The processes that bring about the changes in phenotype entail loss of genetic diversity,

Mutations increase genetic diversity. You are simply wrong.

so that you get new variations or subspecies (or breeds) by losing the alleles for other variations, and ultimately, down a particular line of evolution (or breeding) the new species or breed has only those alleles for that species or breed and has lost the alleles for other species or breeds.

You are once again ignoring the mutations that increase genetic diversity. For example, the mutations that produce black coat color in pocket mice. That phenotype was caused by mutations. It changed a phenotype and increased genetic diversity.

In order to evolve a new kind you would need to change the DNA sequence, correct?

To evolve a new KIND something drastic would have to happen to the genome, far different from mutations to genes for the usual traits.

As I keep saying increasing genetic diversity 1) is not evolution and 2) to get evolution requires reducing whatever genetic diversity is present, no matter what its origin. Evolution as I'm using it means establishing a new population with new traits that differentiate it from the parent population. THAT is what requires reducing genetic diversity. As I keep saying, it does not matter how much genetic diversity you add, TO GET EVOLUTION you have to reduce it to get a new species.

To evolve a new KIND something drastic would have to happen to the genome, far different from mutations to genes for the usual traits.

I should know better than to try to talk with you.

To evolve a new KIND something drastic would have to happen to the genome, far different from mutations to genes for the usual traits.

Define your terms! Just what the frak is a "KIND"? Do please be extremely specific!

Are you trying to pull the usual creationist bullshit of claiming that evolution requires puppies giving rise to kittens? Well, that is damned creationist lie and if you are invoking it then you are yourself damned to your own Hell!

And if your idea of evolving "a new KIND" is such complete and utter bullshit, then so is your entire position.

Evolution tells us that every descendant species continues to belong to its original "kinds", AKA "nested clades". That is also what we observe. Creationists, including yourself here, try to tell us otherwise. Sorry, but you are greatly mistaken.

Evolution as I'm using it ...

Please consider this: you are using it wrong!

If you come up with some false and deceptive idea of what evolution is and you argue to disprove that false and deceptive idea, then are you actually saying anything at all about evolution? No, you are not!

Why is what you are doing called a "strawman"? In traditional stage productions going back to medieval times, when a body needed to be torn apart in triumph, a dummy had to be constructed. Back in medieval times, actual animal abdominal organs would be incorporated into that dummy; gory, but the crowd loved it! In more modern times as evidenced by silent films, a dummy filled with straw would be used -- more specifically, I watched a silent film sequence in which an actual person fell from a loft to the ground and then they cut (not very seamlessly, FWIW) to the hero beating up that dummy filled with straw and throwing it to the side, where through yet another not very seamless cut the actor appeared.

So, what you are doing is to create a false caricature of evolution (a "strawman") which you are then free to beat up on in whatever manner would make you appear more manly.

Have you at any point actually addressed evolution? Nope! In fact, you have avoided doing so at all cost. Which tells us that your position is total bollocks. Which is to say completely untrue in oh so many ways.

I've argued this many times before on my own threads and others' threads. I try to repeat the argument when necessary but it gets frustrating when nobody remembers my former versions and I have to start all over, and I'm running out of steam. I know it's not right to give a bunch of links but I want at least to show where it's been argued before, and these are only a very few of the threads. I make the case better in some threads than others of course and I haven't reviewed all of them, I just want to have some kind of list, and I may add to it:

I've argued this many times before on my own threads and others' threads. I try to repeat the argument when necessary but it gets frustrating when nobody remembers my former versions and I have to start all over, and I'm running out of steam. ...

That's what happens with make up stuff. You have to remember the lies you already told.

In the real world the real scientists don't need to remember what is true, and that includes real evolution.

Every thread you have been told you were wrong.

Did anyone with a science degree in biology agree completely with you ever?

To evolve a new KIND something drastic would have to happen to the genome, far different from mutations to genes for the usual traits.

I would assume that you think chimps and humans are in different kinds. So what difference is there between the chimp and human genome that can't be produced by the types of mutations we see occurring every day?

As I keep saying increasing genetic diversity 1) is not evolution and 2) to get evolution requires reducing whatever genetic diversity is present, no matter what its origin.

And I keep showing how that argument is refuted by the fact that mutations increase genetic diversity.

Evolution as I'm using it means establishing a new population with new traits that differentiate it from the parent population. THAT is what requires reducing genetic diversity.

I've argued this many times before on my own threads and others' threads. I try to repeat the argument when necessary but it gets frustrating when nobody remembers my former versions and I have to start all over, and I'm running out of steam.

You're trying to come up with a way to square your religious beliefs in creationism with the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

You've been stripped down to accepting that the processes behind evolution actually do occur, but you've had to invent this nonsense about "only reducing genetic diversity" in order to save your religious beliefs.

You have literally zero evidence for it other than your wishful thinking.

Your entire position is a just a giant deduction - from the minimum amount of evolution that you have to accept because it is undeniable - coupled with your relentless efforts to absolutely refuse to give up your per-conceived religious beliefs in creationism.

This has lead you to the inescapable place of evolution only being able to reduce genetic diversity.

The differences in DNA sequence are built into the genome of the Kind.

You already know that this cannot be true; since living humans (not to mention other species) encompass more genetic diversity than can be contained in the maximum 4 alleles Adam & Eve could have possessed for each gene (a diversity you opted to reduce to only two alleles, for reasons I didn't grasp).

I understand that what you're trying to do is find a way to fit the evidence to match the biblical account you accept as unimpeachable - but you should not be ignoring what you've learnt in the process.

I've given up trying to match the biblical record for now but I still believe for other reasons that two-allele-genes has to be the original, and given that there are many genes for most or all traits, it really is easy to account for all the known diversity in any Species. I gave the example of two genes for skin color giving the whole range of skin colors.

I've given up trying to match the biblical record for now but I still believe for other reasons that two-allele-genes has to be the original, and given that there are many genes for most or all traits, it really is easy to account for all the known diversity in any Species. I gave the example of two genes for skin color giving the whole range of skin colors.

The problem is that you can't account for the diversity between species with two alleles per gene, much less within a species.

The problem is that you can't account for the diversity between species with two alleles per gene, much less within a species.

I think you said that the wrong way around. I don't think the diversity between species has anything to do with genetic inheritance so there is no genetic provision that could account for it. But within a species two-allele genes/ many genes per trait, is definitely enough to account for all the enormous diversity we see.

Genes for size, some number of them, two alleles eachGenes for fur color and markings, many of them, two alleles eachSeven genes for skin color in humans covers the entire range, two alleles eachThat many or something comparable for eye color covers the entire range, two alleles each

Name the trait, multiple genes with two alleles each will cover all the diversity. The combinations of all these different traits is capable of producing an amazing variety of races of any animal on earth. Lions, tigers, leopards, mountain lions, bobcats, cheetahs, and all the domestic cats. Tell me what you think is lacking in the genetic material to produce all these different cats without mutations.

And dog breeds are an even more various bunch, for which all the genetic material is available there too. The variations within a Kind are just a matter of isolating different combinations of size and trait expression according to the function of each gene. Multiple genes of two alleles each does it all. All it takes is isolation of a limited number olf individuals out of the overall population to bring out new gene frequencies that can produce even dramatic new phenotypes that make up a new species/subspecies.

Think about domestic breeding. How did all the different species of cattle develop? Simply by isolating portions of the wild population and inbreeding them. How was dog breeding originally done? By breeding for particular traits. That's also how Darwin got his varieties of pigeons. It's not mutations because they easily revert to the original type when left to their own devices. Besides which it is generally agreed that all this happens far faster than mutations occur that could contribute to them.

All the ring species are just the product of a limited number of individuals leaving the former population to form a new population in isolation. The new gene frequencies in reproductive isolation over some number of generations is all it takes to bring out the characteristics of a new species. Hybrid zones produce some new variations too. The originally created genome for each Kind is quite sufficient.